Infantilism Discussion - In need of more cookies. o.o

Have you ever considered Infantilism?

Yes.	11.0%	[ 421 ]
No.	69.4%	[ 2662 ]
I am an infantilist...And I hearby claim one of your cookies!	19.6%	[ 750 ]
Total Votes:			[ 3833 ]

[AHugForYou]

when did ABs become prominent in culture?
(when did ABs come to exist)

[EliteDanneh]

AHugForYou

when did ABs become prominent in culture?
(when did ABs come to exist)

We've bee around for like, forever, but to say when did we really become recognised? That'd be early 70s I'd say.

Just opinion though, no solid fact there.

[Faggy Fantastic Mark V]

I wouldn't take issue with this, apart from the clinginess.

See, I have a problem with that.

When you are "clingy," you place a great deal of emotional demands on that person. 'Tis why so many people leave relationships involving people with that description. Most don't realize why it's bothersome, but nonetheless, it's absolutely unfair. Dependency, while comforting and enjoyable for the dependent, is inherently taxing for the subject of the action.

Yes, yes, you'll bring forth the lovely examples of people who are "alright with it," "willing to go through it," or, in rare cases, "happy to do it." Which would be excellent, except that the first two are disregarding the obvious implication that it is an unfair demand upon the subject, and the last is all too often a lie given by individuals with abandonment problems, with the need to be loved at any cost; it's not indicative of comfort, or of happiness, but more of a need to be needed, whatever the cost.

Now, what I would be okay with is the possibility of an individual with matching fetishes for being the "mommy" or "daddy." Unfortunately, due to the nature of the fetish (or whatever you'd like to call it), I find it unlikely that such pains are taken; clinginess, in particular, tends to be something that disregards the needs of others for the needs of the self (despite the claims of the dependent that they would "do anything" for the subject.), and most likely, many infantilists are forcing someone into the respective role, unintentionally as it may be.

I also would like to know, as a further bit of knowledge, if infantilism is more prevalent in males.

[EliteDanneh]

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

I wouldn't take issue with this, apart from the clinginess.

See, I have a problem with that.

When you are "clingy," you place a great deal of emotional demands on that person. 'Tis why so many people leave relationships involving people with that description. Most don't realize why it's bothersome, but nonetheless, it's absolutely unfair. Dependency, while comforting and enjoyable for the dependent, is inherently taxing for the subject of the action.

Yes, yes, you'll bring forth the lovely examples of people who are "alright with it," "willing to go through it," or, in rare cases, "happy to do it." Which would be excellent, except that the first two are disregarding the obvious implication that it is an unfair demand upon the subject, and the last is all too often a lie given by individuals with abandonment problems, with the need to be loved at any cost; it's not indicative of comfort, or of happiness, but more of a need to be needed, whatever the cost.

Now, what I would be okay with is the possibility of an individual with matching fetishes for being the "mommy" or "daddy." Unfortunately, due to the nature of the fetish (or whatever you'd like to call it), I find it unlikely that such pains are taken; clinginess, in particular, tends to be something that disregards the needs of others for the needs of the self (despite the claims of the dependent that they would "do anything" for the subject.), and most likely, many infantilists are forcing someone into the respective role, unintentionally as it may be.

I also would like to know, as a further bit of knowledge, if infantilism is more prevalent in males.

Well. First off. I can completely understand what you're saying. Although there are differing levels of clinginess, what you describe seems to be a TRUE infantile like need for someone, whilst other forms of clinginess are more the wish to be close to the other.

Secondly though, yes, you are correct, more infantilists are male, we theorise that more of the male population are also DLs (Diaper Lovers) on the basis that males sexual orgrans are located on the outside, as opposed to women.

[Faggy Fantastic Mark V]

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

[Stein7]

No, it's emotional stagnation. By living in the past you're never going to be happy, ******** stop it.

[That Foxy Martin]

It all seems a little ridiculous to me, but whatever you want to do, do it.

[o Neonite o]

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

o.o
I don't quite get where you're going with this. How is infantilism a "highly harmful" thing at all? Granted, being completely dependent on someone is a harmful thing, but I believe Danny was trying to say that the "clinginess" here isn't that demanding or anything - more of a wish to just be close to others.

*is probably completely misinterpreting your point* >.<

[moment of violence]

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

It depends on the nature of the relationship. No infantilist that I know of would regress 24-7. There are those that do find a significant other that is willing to compromise and feed the fetish out of love. That doesn't mean that the infantilist is taking advantage of their lover. I agree with you in that in some extreme cases an infantalist could take advantage of their lover and end up hurting someone, but is every infantilist really to blame for that?

Let me put it this way. Let's say a man owns a pistol. Although there isn't really any other use for a pistol than to shoot somebody, it doesn't make the man a killer. After all who would go hunting with a pistol? We can't just go around assuming the worst.

You're also right in saying that a person cannot read another person well enough in a relationship. It's all to common. That's why communication is key. Women are especially guilty. They always play games with their boyfriend to see if he can understand what she is thinking. They say one thing but mean another. Usually in the end they end up hurting someone, I've experienced this first hand. Yet this is perfectly acceptable, I know because I'm constantly reminded of how much of an "a**" I am by all her friends.

[moment of violence]

Stein7

No, it's emotional stagnation. By living in the past you're never going to be happy, ******** stop it.

It's all in how you look at it I suppose. I take it you're a glass is half empty sort of fellow. Stagnation is a period when a person looks back in life, feels possibly regrets and doesn't further his life currently. Infantilism is more regression than stagnation. In regression you act out a period of early age to help you go through your current stage in life. The difference is that in regression you are always looking towards moving further or helping yourself. Although you may not see nor understand it, Infantilists are always looking towards helping their current emotional state of mind. Some wish to return to childhood as a sort of way to help them relax from a long day. Some look to infantilism because they grew up to fast and their mind has a necessity to live and get through that earlier phase in life.
Who's to say that we aren't happy with who we are? Maybe we are happy and you just refuse to see it. If you ask me you're the one unhappy and you just wish to project it on us. In any case I'm sorry you feel so strongly about us we did not wish to strike a nerve.

[Faggy Fantastic Mark V]

moment of violence

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

It depends on the nature of the relationship. No infantilist that I know of would regress 24-7. There are those that do find a significant other that is willing to compromise and feed the fetish out of love. That doesn't mean that the infantilist is taking advantage of their lover. I agree with you in that in some extreme cases an infantalist could take advantage of their lover and end up hurting someone, but is every infantilist really to blame for that?

Let me put it this way. Let's say a man owns a pistol. Although there isn't really any other use for a pistol than to shoot somebody, it doesn't make the man a killer. After all who would go hunting with a pistol? We can't just go around assuming the worst.

You're also right in saying that a person cannot read another person well enough in a relationship. It's all to common. That's why communication is key. Women are especially guilty. They always play games with their boyfriend to see if he can understand what she is thinking. They say one thing but mean another. Usually in the end they end up hurting someone, I've experienced this first hand. Yet this is perfectly acceptable, I know because I'm constantly reminded of how much of an "a**" I am by all her friends.

But I'm willing to bet that there's a strong correlation between infantilism and an individual being overall a "clingy" person. Even when they're not participating in the fetish, they most likely put forth a great deal of emotional dependency, correlated with their need to be "mothered," or "fathered."

However, I would say that the trait you've described is hardly indicative of a gender. It's actually a trait associated with abandonment issues. I know because I used to do it, and I am most assuredly a man. Typically, they come out as little "tests" of people's affections, willingness to go out of their way to love you. You know, walking away and seeing if they follow to see what's wrong. Acting upset, saying nothing's up, and seeing if they care enough to pursue it.

I was broken of the habit by a couple wonderful people who wouldn't play my games. And myself, of course. No change can truly be made or even initiated by another person.

To return to the topic, my argument is that the perspective MOST LIKELY correlated with the fetish would be incredibly harmful to those around them, particularly because the even occasional practice of it places incredible demands on their partner (in the broad sense of whoever helps them play this out) by definition.

[EliteDanneh]

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

moment of violence

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

It depends on the nature of the relationship. No infantilist that I know of would regress 24-7. There are those that do find a significant other that is willing to compromise and feed the fetish out of love. That doesn't mean that the infantilist is taking advantage of their lover. I agree with you in that in some extreme cases an infantalist could take advantage of their lover and end up hurting someone, but is every infantilist really to blame for that?

Let me put it this way. Let's say a man owns a pistol. Although there isn't really any other use for a pistol than to shoot somebody, it doesn't make the man a killer. After all who would go hunting with a pistol? We can't just go around assuming the worst.

You're also right in saying that a person cannot read another person well enough in a relationship. It's all to common. That's why communication is key. Women are especially guilty. They always play games with their boyfriend to see if he can understand what she is thinking. They say one thing but mean another. Usually in the end they end up hurting someone, I've experienced this first hand. Yet this is perfectly acceptable, I know because I'm constantly reminded of how much of an "a**" I am by all her friends.

But I'm willing to bet that there's a strong correlation between infantilism and an individual being overall a "clingy" person. Even when they're not participating in the fetish, they most likely put forth a great deal of emotional dependency, correlated with their need to be "mothered," or "fathered."

However, I would say that the trait you've described is hardly indicative of a gender. It's actually a trait associated with abandonment issues. I know because I used to do it, and I am most assuredly a man. Typically, they come out as little "tests" of people's affections, willingness to go out of their way to love you. You know, walking away and seeing if they follow to see what's wrong. Acting upset, saying nothing's up, and seeing if they care enough to pursue it.

I was broken of the habit by a couple wonderful people who wouldn't play my games. And myself, of course. No change can truly be made or even initiated by another person.

To return to the topic, my argument is that the perspective MOST LIKELY correlated with the fetish would be incredibly harmful to those around them, particularly because the even occasional practice of it places incredible demands on their partner (in the broad sense of whoever helps them play this out) by definition.

I'm no psychological professional so I can't really disagree your opinion, but of the many infantilists I know, I only know two whom are clingy in the way you state, to the point that they are actually uncomfortably clingy and to such, negative to themselves and others.

[moment of violence]

EliteDanneh

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

moment of violence

Faggy Fantastic Mark V

So, in that sense, I see this as a highly harmful fetish, when applied to "mommies" or "daddies."

Much like *****, zoophilia, et cetera, it's more than a bit painful to ignore, but it kind of has to be, or a suitable "outlet" would have to be found, as carrying it out "to the letter" would be distinctly harmful.

I mean, yeah, it's not by any means something that makes you a terrible person by default. I just don't believe it's realistic to carry it out, as the great majority of people cannot read another well enough to tell if and when they are truly happy and okay with something, and a vast number see love as something you "sacrifice" for, and forget your own happiness in the happiness of the more demanding partner.

It depends on the nature of the relationship. No infantilist that I know of would regress 24-7. There are those that do find a significant other that is willing to compromise and feed the fetish out of love. That doesn't mean that the infantilist is taking advantage of their lover. I agree with you in that in some extreme cases an infantalist could take advantage of their lover and end up hurting someone, but is every infantilist really to blame for that?

Let me put it this way. Let's say a man owns a pistol. Although there isn't really any other use for a pistol than to shoot somebody, it doesn't make the man a killer. After all who would go hunting with a pistol? We can't just go around assuming the worst.

You're also right in saying that a person cannot read another person well enough in a relationship. It's all to common. That's why communication is key. Women are especially guilty. They always play games with their boyfriend to see if he can understand what she is thinking. They say one thing but mean another. Usually in the end they end up hurting someone, I've experienced this first hand. Yet this is perfectly acceptable, I know because I'm constantly reminded of how much of an "a**" I am by all her friends.

But I'm willing to bet that there's a strong correlation between infantilism and an individual being overall a "clingy" person. Even when they're not participating in the fetish, they most likely put forth a great deal of emotional dependency, correlated with their need to be "mothered," or "fathered."

However, I would say that the trait you've described is hardly indicative of a gender. It's actually a trait associated with abandonment issues. I know because I used to do it, and I am most assuredly a man. Typically, they come out as little "tests" of people's affections, willingness to go out of their way to love you. You know, walking away and seeing if they follow to see what's wrong. Acting upset, saying nothing's up, and seeing if they care enough to pursue it.

I was broken of the habit by a couple wonderful people who wouldn't play my games. And myself, of course. No change can truly be made or even initiated by another person.

To return to the topic, my argument is that the perspective MOST LIKELY correlated with the fetish would be incredibly harmful to those around them, particularly because the even occasional practice of it places incredible demands on their partner (in the broad sense of whoever helps them play this out) by definition.

I'm no psychological professional so I can't really disagree your opinion, but of the many infantilists I know, I only know two whom are clingy in the way you state, to the point that they are actually uncomfortably clingy and to such, negative to themselves and others.

I really can't say for sure, I've never met another Infantilist in real life so I can't say definitively that other's aren't "clingy." I do know myself though and I wouldn't consider myself "clingy" at all. I haven't been in a serious relationship since December and I'm loving every minute of it. When I was in a relationship my girlfriend wasn't exactly comfortable with me being an infantilist and I was more than happy to keep her from participating at all. We had a happy relationship for another half a year before she broke up with me.
I still don't understand the assumption that infantilists would be clingy. Could you go more in depth with that?

[Empty Azure]

It's really a shame to see so many people that don't understand it bashing us.

What makes us worse than other people? Nothing.

[EliteDanneh]

Immaculate Fantasy

It's really a shame to see so many people that don't understand it bashing us.

What makes us worse than other people? Nothing.

It's generally 5 types of people that bash us.

People whom believe we are *****.
People whom hold adulthood as the start-all/end-all of your life and -THE- big goal to reach
People whom believe we do nothing but mess/wet diapers.
People whom have seen corrupted media coverage (Jerry Springer, CSI, etc)
People whom believe that this makes incapable of other normalities.